Would Gaming be better off without Halo?
- Thread starter The Kangaroo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Halo is necessary for bringing the beauty of the shooter to the console and gamepad. Even if the game itself is lacking, you can't blame stagnation on one game. The companies always will resort to generic and safe games, it's just how capitalism works.
It's not Halo's fault that everyone tries to rip it off. Original Halo was actually a pretty cool dude, killing aliens and not afraid of anything. Thank it for popularising sticky grenades, grenades throwable without switching to them, weapon system actually manageable on consoles.
If only everyone also aped dual health mechanic (again, from original Halo) - regenerating shield, and health reqiring medkits to restore. I liked it so much.
If only everyone also aped dual health mechanic (again, from original Halo) - regenerating shield, and health reqiring medkits to restore. I liked it so much.
Not sure why so many people say this because, in actuality, the first Halo didn't have regenerating health. Halo: Combat Evolved had regenerating shields and a life bar. Against most attacks, your shields would go down and then, once depleted, your life bar would start taking damage. You could regenerate your shields by taking cover and avoiding damage for a while, but your life bar damage could only be healed by med packs.. and this led to some pretty tough situations where you where the game auto saved and you were facing a horde of enemies with only a couple of life bar units left. Not that this is related to the topic at hand though.AC10 said:
Well, I just said "regenerating health" because I didn't want to say "Regenerating shields with un-regenerating life-bar once it's depleted" since it was too long. And regardless, it planted the seeds from "life bar + shield" to "Just one life bar that regens" because in gaming all things seem to tend toward simplicity now-a-days.StriderShinryu said:
That makes me laugh as well. There has been no generation of gaming that has escaped the pursuit of profits over "artistic integrity" so to speak.Psychosocial said:Hahahahah, good one. Really funny.Giest118 said:
OT; I had something I was planing on writing, but judging by the posts in this thread, the OP doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
The Atari era was all but killed by licensed garbage like ET.
The NES era is remembered for Mario/Zelda/Castlevania/etc. but in actuality shelves at the time were dominated by terrible licensed games, Mario clones, and dime a dozen shooters.
The SNES era was pretty much the era of Mario/Sonic mascot platformer knock-offs and me-too RPGs following the success of Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Quest.
Etc.
And yes, to tie this into the original topic, all of this happened before Halo.
Oh, I agree and I don't like the current situation either. I thought Halo:CE's system was a a brilliant change for FPSs and it fit perfectly with the setting. Now a days everyone uses the watered down version of the system no matter whether it fits their game or not. There is no reason for Gears of War, CoD, etc. to have any sort of regenerating health scheme at all but I don't think that can be blamed on Halo. It's more about the lazy devs who can't think up their own system to create challenging encounters without having to stash medkits in the stupidest of places.AC10 said:
I suppose you're right there, Even though, to be honest, games like Wing Commander had shields and hull damage (essentially treating master chief as a space ship) it was a welcomed mix up to the FPS genre when I first played it.StriderShinryu said:
I think Halo's story is artistic. Its gameplay isn't exactly inspired, but its story is excellent.
The reason Halo is shit and why it's developers should be hung from a helecopter is that Halo 2 had a craptastic PC port that set the trend of crappy PC ports. You people that play consoles should get the god-awful ports of glorious PC games, not the other way around!
the simple answer is by not evolving in future titles. also, it's not like halo was the first fps ever.T-Bone24 said:
OT: no, I don't think gaming would be better off without halo if only for the simple fact that it did wonders for making gaming a more acceptable recreational activity, then again, maybe I'm biased since halo 2 came out when I was in high school and was pretty much one of the reasons I never got called a nerd for geeking out about games in public.
Well seems rather cut and dry here. The first Halo as good or as bad as you want to call it, was in fact a pure accident. Halo Wars is what they had in mind when making Halo. Where one aspect of the game was so good to the designers they made the whole game about it. The game is good from the pieces of it working aspect of things. Just was a bit generic. Raze's Hell used many of the same things Halo used(was marked on the box saying this) and came off as a more interesting game. So you know the game can be better, just choice to not be. The sales so far give a good reason for why so.
